JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Israel’s Use of AI in Gaza Sparks Protest at Tech Companies in the U.S.
The Israeli military uses Artificial Intelligence to find and target Hamas fighters, but with a civilian death toll estimated at 52,000, critics allege the system is not reliable and may even be providing cover for widespread bombing and ethnic cleansing. And that US companies are complicit.
American Policy in Africa: US Retreats as China Advances
On 22 April, Secretary of State Marco Rubio revealed plans to reorganize the State Department with the justification of increasing efficiency, rooting out ‘radical political ideology’, and delivering Trump’s foreign policy agenda. The details of the plan focus on reducing the size of the State Department and its budget over time: consolidating regional bureaus and embassies, shutting down redundant offices, and ending non-statutory programs that the administration determines to be irrelevant to American interests.
Old Growth Forest Policy Made at the 19th Hole
Through an Executive Order issued March 1, 2025, there is to be an expansion of American timber production that meets goals to achieve “sound forest management, reduce time to deliver timber, and decrease timber supply uncertainty.” Approximately 100 million acres, the equivalent of 60% of our national forests, are to be within earshot of a chainsaw. In so doing, the Trump administration declares this a “new era” in national forest management. Legally protected forest land and parts of old growth forest are slated be part of the expanded production.
The Trump Administration and the University Communities: Part 1, Funding Suspension
In April 2025, the Trump administration escalated its efforts to reshape American higher education by suspending billions in federal grants to elite universities — including Harvard, Columbia, and others — accused of promoting “critical race theory,” “transgender ideology,” and other Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. This move is part of a broader campaign to reorient education policy around conservative cultural values and dismantle what the administration frames as liberal dominance within academia.
A Primer on Political Interest Groups
Political interest groups play a central role in shaping policy in the United States. From corporate-funded lobbying arms to grassroots-driven caucuses, these groups influence electoral outcomes, legislative priorities, and public discourse. Their power lies in their ability to mobilize voters, fund campaigns, and set political agendas, often behind closed doors. The disproportionate influence of wealthy donors and elite organizations has made representative democracy more vulnerable to manipulation, with policies reflecting corporate interests rather than the public good. Understanding these interest groups is essential not just to map where power lies, but to challenge it.
Danger in Economic Uncertainty: A Lesson From Trump’s Tariff Policies
The dust is still being settled a month after the U.S. President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day.” He was never coy about his desire to wield tariffs to achieve his geopolitical goals. Both in his previous administration and on the campaign trail, he promised that they are the way to rebuild American manufacturing and repair trade imbalances.
The Trump Administration and University Communities: Part II
Following the initial wave of federal funding suspensions, the Trump administration has intensified its campaign to reshape American higher education. The effort has moved beyond merely withholding grants and now seeks deeper operational control over elite universities. This expansion marks an unprecedented federal intervention into how universities govern themselves, raising alarms over the future of academic independence in the United States. The campaign has expanded into direct interventions at major institutions, citing issues ranging from anti-Semitism management to alleged ideological bias in curricula. Universities such as Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and the University of Michigan have become central battlegrounds in this escalating conflict, responding with legal challenges, public protests, and high-profile statements defending academic freedom.
Resistance is Not Futile: Upholding Civil Rights and Constitutional Norms to withstand Trump’s Autocratic Aims
In his first 100 days in office, President Trump has pursued a sinister goal of autocracy by relentlessly attacking any and all forms of opposition and repressing civil rights and liberties.
USResist News Magazine: April 2025 #2
We are pleased to send you the current issue of USRESIST SHARE—our bi-weekly magazine of the latest news Briefs by our Reporters. USRESIST SHARE is intended to deepen your understanding of today’s leading public policy and political issues. We hope you’ll enjoy and welcome your feedback.
USResist News Magazine: April 2025 #2
We are pleased to send you the current issue of USRESIST SHARE—our bi-weekly magazine of the latest news Briefs by our Reporters. USRESIST SHARE is intended to deepen your understanding of today’s leading public policy and political issues. We hope you’ll enjoy and welcome your feedback.
Trump’s Bromance With Big Tech Hits Some Bumps
Trump’s Bromance With Big Tech Hits Some Bumps
Tech billionaire support for Donald Trump is paying off in some of the expected ways, such as extraordinary access and deregulation. But Trump has wreaked havoc on the stock market, disappointed his crypto backers, and failed to save Mark Zuckerberg from a grilling at the Federal Trade Commission.
Big Tech Access to the President
The stock market meltdown was underway on April 10 when Trump boarded Air Force One and headed to his golf club in Miami for a tournament sponsored by wealthy corporate backers including Tik Tok. The next day he extended the deadline for Tik Tok owner Byte Dance to sell its US business for 90 days- the second time he’d given the company an extension.
Back in Washington, Mark Zuckerberg was closing on a $23 million home In Washington, D.C., the third most expensive real estate sale in that city’s history. He’d been in town unsuccessfully lobbying Trump for help dodging an antitrust trial that started April 14 despite Zuckerberg’s entreaties. The Federal Trade Commission alleges Meta’s purchase of WhatsApp and Instagram was a deliberate strategy to kill Facebook’s competition, and the government’s lawyers did not go easy on Zuckerberg when he testified.
Zuckerberg is also looking to Trump to go to bat for him with the European Union, which holds Meta to far more stringent standards than it faces here in the US. Meta has been hit with over $3 billion in fines by the European Union for violations of its privacy and antitrust rules. At the Munich Security Conference in February where JD Vance attacked the US’s European allies, Meta executive Joel Kaplan suggested Meta was being treated unfairly and warned of US retaliation. “When companies are treated differently in a way that is discriminatory against them, then that should be highlighted to that company’s home government,” he said. “So I think we will do that with President Trump.”
Trump Gives to Crypto and Takes From Crypto
The Winklevosses and other Crypto billionaires bet big on Trump, expecting a lax regulatory environment or no regulations at all. Or no one to enforce them. The US Justice Department has already shuttered the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team, a division devoted to monitoring fraud in the crypto industry.
The staff heard the news from Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, whose credentials for that role include his defense of Trump in the 2024 criminal trial in which Trump was found guilty of 34 felonies. His announcement criticized former president Joe Biden, who, according to Blanche, “used the justice department to pursue a reckless strategy of regulation by prosecution.”
Blanche said there will be an about-face at the Justice Department, which will now focus on “prosecuting individuals who victimize digital asset investors, or those who use digital assets in furtherance of criminal offenses such as terrorism, narcotics and human trafficking, organized crime, hacking, and cartel and gang financing”.
As expected, President Trump signed into law a bill that loosens cryptocurrency regulations by eliminating IRS requirements that crypto trading platforms be treated as brokers and that they track and report user activity, reversing the Biden policy of strengthening crypto tax reporting.
But the Bitcoin bros, who fell in love when Trump promised to make the US the “Bitcoin superpower of the world,” lost some of that loving feeling when they realized that Bitcoin would not serve as the core currency of the new national crypto reserve Trump is starting. Instead, he will use his currency, USD1, a Stablecoin. Unlike Bitcoin, which doesn’t have central management, USD1 is solely managed by Trump’s World Liberty Financial. “As President Trump has directed, we are going to keep the U.S. the dominant reserve currency in the world, and we will use Stablecoins to do that,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said.
Tariffs Are On, Tariffs Are Off
Trump did back off of tariffs for tech products- for now- but Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and other tech billionaires have already lost billions. Trump has also cut federal funding for AI research and his immigration policies are leading to an industry that depends on immigrant talent. And, after the wild ride of the last 3 months, even his buddies know there’s no there’s no telling what he’ll do next. The question is whether the tech billionaires will continue to do his bidding if he fails to do theirs.
Engagement Resources
The Tech Oversight Project, https://techoversight.org, Punish Bad Actions from Big Tech.
Here’s How Much Bay Area Tech Billionaires Lost As A Result In Recent Tariff-Induced Market Turmoil By Aidin Vaziri, April 15, 2025
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/billionaires-market-losses-20275770.php
The Tech Accountability & Competition Project at Yale School of Law, https://law.yale.edu/mfia/projects/tech-accountability-competition-project
The TAC Project aims to promote and enforce comprehensive legal regimes that require technology companies, digital platforms, and other public and private actors exerting power in the digital space to reduce harms arising from their business models and practices and respect the rights of all people affected by their products and services.
Social Media Platforms Pursue Hatred While Claiming to Promote Free Speech
Social Media Platforms Pursue Hatred While Claiming to Promote Free Speech
Technology Brief #128 | Naja Barnes | April 20, 2025
Amid the current political unrest, citizens have voiced their concerns through social media. Voicing one’s differences of opinions without government interference is an American right, but that right has since been under attack.
Social media is a tool used to connect and inform people across the world, but it also is being weaponized to censor free speech, a basic right under the Constitution’s First Amendment. However social media platforms are not government entities, and therefore are not bound by the First Amendment.
Consequently the lines of what is considered an infringement of free speech are being blurred.
Analysis
Censorship of speech through the use of algorithms and moderation practices of social media has happened before, during political movements. In 2020, the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and the cases of Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and George Floyd brought on a political movement and nationwide protests in support. This was made possible due to the use of social media and its ability to reach a widespread audience. However, during the BLM movement, users of Instagram noticed that their algorithm alsowere suppressing stories and posts surrounding the movement. This type of censoring through the use of algorithms and moderation is not an infringement on free speech because social media platforms are private entities; meaning that they can censor any information they deem inappropriate for their platform.
Leaders of social media platforms mistakenly argue that their platforms support free speech. For example Elon Musk’s claims that his platform X encourages all forms of speech, including hate speech. However X routinely censors posts that critique Musk, have left-leaning views, and discuss LGBTQ+ issues.
In conclusion, free speech is being mistakenly promoted as a feature of social media platforms, like X. The real reason for free speech is to allow citizens to lawfully express their opinions, critique their government, and promote safe discourse. So far, there has been little room to do so under major social media platforms, and the future of free speech remains uncertain.
Engagement Resources
- ‘Rules aren’t clear anymore’: Trump crackdown on student protesters sends shock waves across US universities
https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/16/us/mahmoud-khalil-columbia-protests-free-speech/index.html - Freedom of speech is shifting under the Trump administration. We’re exploring how
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/07/nx-s1-5327154/free-speech-trump-first-amendment
How ICE Works (Immigration Policy Brief #144)
How ICE Works
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was created in 2003 as a component of the Department of Homeland Security to enforce immigration laws inside the United States and investigate transnational crime. Twenty‑two years later, the agency employs more than 20,000 personnel across more than 400 domestic and foreign offices. Since President Donald Trump’s second inauguration on January 20, 2025, enforcement has accelerated—32,809 arrests in the first fifty days alone—and detention centers have exceeded their funded capacity of 41,500 beds, holding up to 47,600 people as at March 12. These pressures have revived longstanding concerns about transparency, cost, and civil‑rights protections. This Brief explains how ICE is organized, how it selects and processes cases, and which institutions oversee its work.
Analysis
ICE is currently led by Acting Director Todd Lyons, appointed on March 9, 2025, together with Deputy Director Madison Sheahan. Four headquarters directorates—Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, and Management & Administration—form the agency’s core.
ICE identifies most targets through three pipelines. First, Secure Communities automatically matches the fingerprints of local arrestees against DHS databases, triggering detainers when immigration violations appear. Second, 456 active 287(g) agreements deputize state or local officers to issue immigration detainers and conduct interviews under ICE supervision. Third, Border Patrol routinely transfers apprehended border crossers to ERO custody once they move beyond the immediate border zone.
After ICE files a Notice to Appear, cases move to the Executive Office for Immigration Review; detained individuals may request bond hearings under EOIR’s Chapter 9.3 guidance. According to a December 2024 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), the median processing time for immigration court cases between fiscal years 2016 and 2023 was 394 days. However, cases involving detained individuals had a significantly shorter median processing time of 52 days. This indicates that detained single-adult cases often conclude in under two months. Removals are carried out by ERO’s Removal Division using ICE Air charter and commercial flights.
ICE detains migrants in roughly 110 facilities that include service‑processing centers, private contract prisons, and county jails. DHS‑OIG inspections covering FY 2020–23 found persistent deficiencies in environmental health, medical staffing, and grievance systems and calculated that ICE paid about $160 million for guaranteed beds that went unused. A 2024 GAO audit concluded that ICE publicly undercounts tens of thousands of detainees and recommended fuller data disclosure.
Oversight layers include ICE’s Office of Professional Responsibility, the DHS Inspector General, and congressional committees that commission GAO studies. Federal courts provide a final backstop through habeas petitions and class‑action litigation. Policy analysts point to three immediate levers for the improvement of ICE: publish complete detention and Alternatives‑to‑Detention data, renegotiate guaranteed‑bed contracts to align with forecast need, and expand the Intensive Supervision Appearance and case management programs, which ICE reports yields high court‑appearance compliance at a fraction of detention costs.
ICE’s Effectiveness Under Trump 2.0
Since President Donald Trump’s second inauguration on January 20, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has intensified its operations. In the first 50 days, ICE made 32,809 enforcement arrests, nearly matching the total number of at-large arrests for the entire fiscal year 2024. As reported, quite a number of these arrests involved individuals with criminal convictions or pending charges.
The administration has faced criticism for aggressive enforcement tactics. Notable incidents include the mistaken deportation of Kilmar Ábrego García, a Maryland resident with legal work authorization, who was sent to El Salvador despite judicial protections. Additionally, the arrest of Juan Francisco Mendez in Massachusetts, who was forcibly removed from his vehicle despite not being the intended target, has raised concerns about due process and civil rights violations.
Similarly, in March 2025, Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish doctoral student and Fulbright scholar at Tufts University, was arrested by plain-clothes ICE agents near her home in Somerville, Massachusetts. Her detention followed the co-authorship of an op-ed in The Tufts Daily supporting Palestinian rights. Despite a lack of evidence linking her to terrorist activities, Öztürk was swiftly transferred to a detention facility in Louisiana without prior notice or access to legal counsel. A federal judge later ordered her transfer back to Vermont, citing significant constitutional concerns regarding her arrest and detention.
In the same vein, on April 14, 2025, Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian Buddhist and former Columbia University student, was detained by ICE during his naturalization interview in Vermont. Mahdawi, known for his peaceful activism and interfaith dialogue, had no criminal record. His arrest has been criticized as a violation of free speech and due process, with legal advocates arguing that he was targeted for his political beliefs.
In another case, Kseniia Petrova, a Russian scientist affiliated with Harvard Medical School, was detained by ICE at Boston Logan Airport in February 2025 after returning from a trip to France. Authorities cited the improper declaration of biological materials as the reason for her detention. However, supporters argue that the action was disproportionate and possibly influenced by her opposition to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Petrova remains in ICE custody in Louisiana, facing potential deportation.
These incidents reflect a broader pattern of ICE’s aggressive tactics, including warrantless street and home arrests. These reports and many others indicate that ICE agents have conducted operations without judicial warrants, often using deceptive practices such as impersonating local law enforcement to gain entry into homes. Such actions have raised serious concerns about violations of the Fourth Amendment and the erosion of due process protections for noncitizens.
As deportations surge and detention fills to the brim, the question may no longer be whether ICE is effective, but at what cost—and to whom?
Engagement Resources
- Detention Watch Network (https://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org): A national coalition dedicated to shutting down immigration detention and stopping the expansion of ICE facilities.
- Mijente (https://mijente.net): A grassroots Latinx and Chicanx organization that has been at the forefront of the Abolish ICE movement. Mijente organizes campaigns to end deportations, defund ICE and CBP, and protect immigrant communities (for example, pressuring tech companies to stop collaborating with ICE).
- Freedom for Immigrants (https://www.freedomforimmigrants.org): A nonprofit working to abolish immigration detention, support detained people, and shift toward community-based support.
- No More Deaths (https://nomoredeaths.org): A volunteer humanitarian group focused on ending the death and suffering of migrants in the U.S.-Mexico borderlands. They provide water, medical aid, and support in the desert, and campaign against Border Patrol violence and surveillance.
Deporting Democracy: The Crackdown on Foreign Student Visas (Immigration Policy Brief #143)
Deporting Democracy: The Crackdown on Foreign Student Visas
Immigration Brief # 143 | Morgan Davidson | April 22, 2025
Institutions of higher education are under attack. Since the return of the Trump administration, more than 1,500 international students and recent graduates from over 240 institutions, across at least 45 states and Washington, D.C., have had their F-1 academic and J-1 exchange visas revoked.
As a doctoral student in the U.S. education system, this is not just a headline to me: it is personal. My cohort is evenly split between domestic and international students, with classmates hailing from Europe, Asia, and Africa. These are scholars who believe in democracy, who left their home countries, sometimes at great personal risk, with the hope of contributing to American society, promoting democratic values, and advancing human knowledge.
Now, under this administration, those students are being driven out. We have already seen the cases: Rumeysa Öztürk, the Turkish Fulbright scholar from Tufts; Mahmoud Khalil, the Palestinian student activist from Columbia; Kseniia Petrova, the Russian researcher at Harvard Medical School. Bright, promising individuals have been detained or deported without due process.
This is not about making America great. It is about making it smaller, meaner, and less relevant on the global stage. When we push the world’s brightest minds away, we do not just lose students, we lose allies, ideas, and innovation.
This article is a call to action: end the mass revocations of student visas now.
Analysis
The Trump administration has weaponized immigration law to target international students under the guise of national security. Visa revocations are happening through obscure bureaucratic mechanisms that deny due process and operate entirely outside public view. Agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are acting with virtually no transparency. Students often receive no warning that their F-1 or J-1 visas have been revoked; they find out only when they are detained at airports, during class, or in their homes by masked, unidentified agents.
Universities and faculty are blindsided. SEVIS, the database schools use to track international student status, is often updated after a student has already been detained. By the time administrators are aware, it is too late to intervene.
These decisions are frequently based on AI-driven surveillance of social media, targeting students who post pro-Palestinian content or criticism of U.S. foreign policy. The case of Rumeysa Öztürk, a Turkish Fulbright scholar detained after co-authoring a campus op-ed, makes clear: this is not about lawbreaking. It’s about silencing speech.
This isn’t the return of free speech. It’s the criminalization of dissent.
This wave of visa revocations is not random: it’s political profiling. International students who speak out against U.S. foreign policy, especially in defense of Palestinian rights, are being systematically targeted. The Trump administration justifies these actions with obscure “national security” claims, but offers no evidence that student activism poses a real threat to the country.
Meanwhile, where are the voices of the “Genocide Joe” protesters? Trump has escalated U.S. support for Israel and launched a direct crackdown on the protesters themselves, yet many of those same movements have gone quiet.
The consequences of this crackdown stretch far beyond individual students. By detaining scholars like Mahmoud Khalil or Kseniia Petrova, neither accused of any crime, the U.S. sends a chilling message: free speech is conditional, and foreign-born dissent is unwelcome. As a result, brilliant students are turning to other countries. China, in particular, is stepping in to attract those driven out of the U.S., offering academic refuge where America offers detention cells.
This isn’t protecting America- it’s punishing the people who believed in it.
International students aren’t just visitors. They contribute billions to the economy, drive innovation in research and technology, and strengthen global cooperation. In my own program, these students are not foreign radicals. They are peers and friends from across the world who believe in the ideals of American democracy. Many have risked their safety, left family behind, or were forced to cut ties to be part of that vision.
By revoking their visas and targeting their voices, the U.S. is sending a dangerous message: political opposition is unwelcome. When a nation punishes peaceful dissent, that’s not strength. It’s outright authoritarianism.
We don’t just lose students. We lose allies, ideas, and innovation. These actions don’t just harm students. They undercut American influence. China & European countries are welcoming the talent we are actively pushing away. In the long run, this isn’t just a moral failure, it’s a strategic one.
When students feel safer speaking freely in Beijing than in Boston, something is deeply wrong.
The Biden and Obama administrations didn’t get everything right on immigration, but they didn’t turn international students into political targets. What we’re seeing now is unprecedented — and unacceptable. There must be an immediate suspension of foreign student visa revocations, restoration of due process rights, and a serious legislative review of ICE’s unchecked authority.
Academic freedom and international education are cornerstones of American influence and credibility. If we continue down this path, we won’t just lose students; we’ll lose what made America worth coming to in the first place.
Engagement Resources
- American Immigration Council
Explore how immigration policies affect families, the economy, and communities across the U.S.
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/ - American Immigration Council – Student Visa Resources
Legal explanations and policy analysis on student visa rights, terminations, and advocacy options.
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/ - The Intercept – Civil Liberties & Surveillance Reporting
In-depth investigative reporting on ICE, AI surveillance, and civil liberties in higher education.
https://theintercept.com/
The Administration Efforts to Avoid a Judicial Ruling
The Administration Efforts to Avoid a Judicial Ruling
On April 9, 2025 the House of Representatives voted on the No Rogue Rulings Act bill. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA). H.R. 1526 would prohibit a federal district court judge from issuing an injunction or prohibition regarding a case unless the injunction or prohibition only applied to the parties of the particular case before the district judge’s court. The bill passed the House by a vote of 219 – 213 in favor of the bill, almost exclusively on party lines. One Republican voted against the bill, Rep. Mike Turner from Ohio.
The bill is in response to President Donald Trump and other Republicans anger at having a number of the President’s executive orders and policy proposals temporarily paused or put on hold by an order from a district court judge. During the first two months of the Trump Administration there have been seventeen nationwide injunctions that have been issued against a Trump Administration executive order or policy proposal. The injunctions have been comprised of temporary restraining orders (TRO) and preliminary injunctions (PI) and most have been applied nationwide. When a TRO or PI are issued in ordinary cases between parties the injunction usually prohibits one of the parties from taking a certain action before the case can be resolved at trial. But since cases brought against a Trump Administration executive order or policy affect the entire country as a whole, the TRO’s and PI’s that have been issued inevitably prohibited the executive order or policy proposal from being implemented for the time being nationwide. The No Rogue Rulings Act is intended to prevent federal district judges from issuing these injunctions by modifying how they may be implemented.
The bill will now move to the Senate where passage in that chamber seems highly unlikely. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis
Since the beginning of the second Trump Administration the President and many of his supporters have been angry that many of their executive orders and policy proposals have been temporarily halted and paused by the courts. Some GOP members have even openly called for judges to be impeached when a judge has issued rulings that they disagreed with. This prompted a rare rebuke from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts who stated, “Impeachment is not an appropriate response to a disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” Nevertheless, GOP outrage at judges and the judiciary as a whole have persisted during the first two months of President Trump’s term.
The No Rogue Rulings Act bill has intensified this conflict because the bill and the changes and modifications it will provide are not necessary. It is merely a partisan reaction to rulings Republicans do not agree with and so now they are trying to “move the goal posts” to give their policy proposals a greater chance of success if challenged in a court of law. The purpose behind TRO’s and PI’s is not to rule whether a policy is good or bad. A temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction are often issued at the beginning of a case and merely questions whether a party should be prohibited from doing something while the case moves through trial. It is temporary in nature. A court could decide to allow a policy to be implemented or it could decide to block it’s implementation permanently. A permanent injunction would only come after a trial. A pause does not mean that a policy proposal is instantly rejected. This is what Trump Administration officials are failing to grasp about nationwide injunctions being put on pause temporarily.
Rep. Mike Turner, the only Republican to not support the No Rogue Rulings Act pointed out that “the judicial system works” and that this bill is not necessary. He also pointed out that even if a district judge issued a temporary national injunction like in the recent immigrant deportations flight case, the Supreme Court was there to strike down and overturn the injunction. The judiciary has protections and protocols in place to ensure that a party can appeal and still have their case heard on the merits. Rep. Hank Johnson from Georgia, a Democrat, called it a judicial system, “working exactly as it should.”
Predictably, the bill has gotten a very partisan response which has illustrated the underlying issues. Rep. Pramila Jaypal (D-WA) stated, “If you don’t like the injunctions, don’t do illegal, unconstitutional stuff. That simple” with the implication being that Trump is trying to change the rules because most of his actions are illegal. Republicans have countered that the bill is necessary because a constitutional crisis has emerged where radical “activist judges” have improperly usurped the power of the Executive Branch of the Government to implement their preferred agenda. But the fact of the matter is that Republicans have introduced a bill that is neither needed nor necessary. It is simply feigned indignation for their inability to craft an executive order or policy proposal that can withstand scrutiny during the early stages of a case. They’ve forgotten that these TRO’s and PI’s are temporary and that they can still win their cases at trial even though their policy is temporarily paused. And even if they don’t prevail at trial, the Trump Administration and their allies can appeal to the appropriate appeals court and eventually the Supreme Court. There is no need to change the scope and national reach of a federal district court’s ability to issue an injunction simply because a policy can’t be implemented right now. The No Rogue Rulings Act does nothing but exposes the Republicans and Trump Administration’s hostility towards the judiciary strictly for partisan reasons. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- The Hill – analysis of the No Rogue Rulings Act bill.
- National Public Radio (NPR) – how the effort to rein in judges has divided the GOP.
Understanding What the U.S. Department of Education Did
Understanding What the U.S. Department of Education Did
Brief # 200 Education Policy | Valerie Henderson | April 22, 2025
The U.S. Department of Education (DOE), established in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter, promotes student achievement, ensures equal access to education, and enforces federal laws prohibiting discrimination in federally funded programs. Historically, it manages Pell Grants, student loans, Title I programs for low-income students, and special education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It also oversees civil rights compliance in educational institutions.
Over time, the DOE’s scope has expanded through legislation such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965) and the Higher Education Act (1965), and subsequent reauthorizations including the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) and Every Student Succeeds Act (2015).
Analysis
Initially a support system for states, the DOE has increasingly influenced local education policy through conditional funding. Federal initiatives like Common Core, Race to the Top, and standardized testing requirements reflect deeper federal engagement.
Critics argue this undermines local autonomy, while supporters emphasize its role in ensuring nationwide equity—particularly for marginalized populations. While federal funding comprises only 8–10% of total education spending, the conditions attached give it significant policy leverage.
Advocates warn that dismantling the DOE would harm students depending on federal services, particularly children with disabilities and those in underfunded schools. Meanwhile, proponents of abolishment believe local control would promote innovation and reduce bureaucracy.
On March 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to dismantle the Department of Education. A day later, the administration ordered the transfer of federal student loan responsibilities to the Small Business Administration (SBA). This move bypassed pending legislation and triggered concern among legal scholars and policy experts, as the SBA lacks statutory authority and infrastructure to handle the complex $1.6 trillion federal student loan portfolio.
A March 11 reduction in force eliminated nearly one-third of DOE staff, impairing its capacity to carry out core functions. Simultaneously, the SBA—facing its own 43% staff cut—was ill-equipped to manage the scale and complexity of federal student aid, which includes varied loan types, forgiveness programs, and FAFSA infrastructure.
Universities like Seton Hall have publicly reaffirmed their commitments to DEI programs and warned of looming financial instability. Investigations into more than 50 universities have already resulted in the suspension of DEI-related federal grants, with billions in funding at stake.
Without a statutory transfer of authority, legal experts argue that the SBA may be unable to enforce current student loan agreements, potentially violating the Higher Education Act of 1965. Civil rights enforcement under Title VI, Title IX, and IDEA is also at risk if the DOE is dissolved without new federal mechanisms. Experts caution that, without congressional approval, this reorganization faces strong legal resistance. The abrupt withdrawal of federal oversight could severely compromise protections for marginalized students, amplify educational inequities, and destabilize the national education landscape.
I do not support efforts to abolish the Department of Education, as doing so would significantly harm students who depend on federally mandated services, especially those from historically marginalized backgrounds and children with disabilities. The Department plays an essential role in protecting civil rights, funding special education programs, and ensuring equitable access to education across all states. Without its oversight, local disparities in funding, quality, and inclusiveness would likely widen. While there is room for reform and improved collaboration with states, dismantling the DOE would strip away necessary protections and support systems that millions of students rely on daily.
Engagement Resources
- National Education Association (NEA)
Advocates for public education policies that strengthen public schools, enhance educational opportunities, and improve educator working conditions.
https://www.nea.org - Education Trust
Engages in research and advocacy aimed at closing achievement gaps and promoting educational equity across socioeconomic and racial groups.
https://edtrust.org - Center on Education Policy (CEP)
Provides nonpartisan, evidence-based research on public education, helping policymakers understand the implications of educational policies and practices.
https://www.cep-dc.org
United States v. South Africa: US Executive Order 14204
United States v. South Africa: US Executive Order 14204
Brief # 198 Foreign Policy | Damian DeSola | April 21, 2025
The current US administration has altered South Africa’s trajectory as a nation. On 7 February 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14204 titled, “Addressing Egregious Actions of The Republic of South Africa”. It outlines two reasons for its existence, first that South Africa’s Expropriation Act (2024) dismantles “equal opportunity” and fuels “disproportionate violence against racially disfavored landowners”. Secondly, the Order states that South Africa’s condemnation of Israel to the International Court of Justice, “poses national security threats to the US.” The provisions of the order also set two major policies that will reverberate across the international community. One is an immediate cut to United States aid to South Africa, second is the promotion of resettling Afrikaners, Dutch-descended South Africans, in the United States as refugees from racial discrimination.
Following this order, Secretary of State Marco Rubio expelled South African Ambassador to the United States Ebrahim Rasool over his comments: “the Maga movement as a response not simply to a supremacist instinct, but to very clear data that shows great demographic shifts in the USA in which the voting electorate in the USA is projected to become 48% white.” Rubio said that Ambassador Rasool is “no longer welcome”. Furthermore, Donald Trump has posted on Truth Social that the United States will not be attending the G20 Summit in South Africa this year under the false claim that, “They are taking the land of white Farmers and then killing them and their families. The Media refuses to report on this.”
Before examining the consequences of these actions, it is necessary to outline basic context of South Africa as it exists in international relations.
With the arrival of Dutch colonizers, the land now known as South Africa has been in a perpetual state of societal complication. The construction of a repressive race-based social hierarchy that legally lasted to the end of the apartheid state in the 1990s, still stains its history. Even now, many public institutions like schools and hospitals remain segregated while most commercial farmland is still owned by white farmers.
No longer a colony nor run by a white supremacist government, South Africa has sought its place in the world. It is the ‘S’ at the end of the acronym for the international economic coalition BRICS; it has strong relationships with European nations, and formerly with the United States.
Whether or not one agrees with the political choices made by the post-apartheid South African governments, the nation seeks to develop its economy and society in a direction that is built on foreign direct investment and anti-apartheid sentiment.
Trump’s rhetoric would make one think that the South African government’s ne3 law orders all land owned by the minority white farmers be immediately nationalized and redistributed to the black majority. The South African government says this law will not be used arbitrarily and only for the purpose of public interest. There is no language in the law that specifically mentions the race of landowners. As of this writing, there has been no confiscation of land reported.
The resettlement of Afrikaners is a policy focus that is closely tied with Trump, Musk, and the administration’s rhetoric condemning the Expropriation Act and of general criticism of South Africa’s government. The false rhetoric that white South Africans are having their land stolen and being murdered by the government and by black South Africans, has become an excuse to accept Afrikaners as refugees in a show of race solidarity. Tens of thousands of Afrikaners have shown interest in the program.
In terms of South Africa’s relationship with Iran, the evidence for anti-American activity that would undermine US national security is sparse at best. The claim that South Africa has taken the side of Hamas, which is supported by Iran, is entirely based on the assumption that accusing Israel of genocide in Palestine is inherently pro-Hamas. However, South Africa’s support for Palestine has existed since the days of Nelson Mandela’s fight against apartheid, where he believed that both South Africa’s and Palestine’s causes for liberty were synonymous.
Trump’s Executive Order, to halt aid and to resettle Afrikaners as refugees in the United States, has considerable implications. The halting of aid to South Africa will be majorly detrimental to U.S. soft power, and to the livelihood of the South African people. Questions also remain over the continuation of HIV aid to South Africa as it flows through USAID, which is being dismantled. If aid is discontinued, the waning HIV epidemic in South Africa, and across Southern Africa will reaccelerate. In terms of soft power, US rivals will be emboldened to step into its place as reliable investors in South Africa’s future.
The Trump administration’s policy decisions and diplomatic actions will have major implications for future US foreign policy in Africa and the ongoing power struggle between the United States and China over international influence. South Africa will continue to act in its interests as its unique post-apartheid system evolves and adapts to these developments.
The Week That Was: Global News in Review
The Week That Was: Global News in Review
Foreign Policy #197 | By Ibrahim Castro | April 16, 2025
Presidential Elections in Ecuador
Supporters of President Daniel Noboa celebrate early returns showing him in the lead in the presidential election runoff in Quito, Ecuador, Sunday, April 13, 2025. Carlos Noriega/AP
Ecuador President Daniel Noboa has been declared winner of the country’s presidential election, over Luisa González, a protégé of Ecuador’s left-wing former President Rafael Correa. Gonzalez offered an alternative model for security based on what her party described as “prevention, violence reduction and coexistence”. Noboa narrowly beat Ms. González in the first round in February but did not reach the 50 percent threshold required to avoid a second round. Polls show Sunday’s election as a standoff. In the past five years, Ecuador has experienced an explosion in violence linked to drug trafficking. Its justice system is plagued by overcrowding, corruption and has become fertile ground for prison gangs allied with international drug cartels. Noboa declared a state of internal armed conflict last year to address the escalating violence and prison riots, authorizing the military to patrol both the streets and prisons. His victory means he now has a full four year mandate to continue his self-described “war” on narco gangs. He recently signed a security agreement with Erik Prince, the founder of the former U.S. mercenary contractor Blackwater and has proposed changing the constitution to allow foreign military bases in the country again.
Russian Missile Strikes Continue Against Ukraine
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1536/cpsprodpb/bded/live/35ee3260-19c5-11f0-a455-cf1d5f751d2f.jpg.webp
Two Russian ballistic missiles slammed into the heart of the northern Ukrainian city of Sumy last week, killing 34 people and wounding 117 in the deadliest strike on Ukraine this year. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy demanded a tough international response against Moscow over the attack. Many European leaders condemned the latest attacks. NATO secretary general Mark Rutte visited the southern Ukrainian city of Odesa with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and declared unwavering support for Ukraine. US president Donald Trump, when asked about the Russian strike, commented that “I was told they made a mistake… but it’s terrible”. Zelensky called on the United States to provide forces as part of an international peacekeeping effort, specifically asking for Washington to help protect Ukrainian airspace with aircraft. A request that is unlikely to be fulfilled as analysts worry that, as the United States attempts to broker a ceasefire in Ukraine, it is set to reward Moscow with territorial and security concessions at Ukraine’s expense.
War in Sudan Nears its Third Anniversary
Fire rages in a livestock market area in al-Fasher, the capital of Sudan’s North Darfur state, in 2023 in the aftermath of bombardment by the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces.AFP – Getty Images
Sudan plunged into civil war on April 15, 2023 after tensions between the Sudanese paramilitary group known as the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the country’s military boiled over. The fighting began in the capital Khartoum and quickly spread across the country. The conflict has pushed many parts of the country into famine and displaced more than 14 million people from their homes. Many have fled into neighboring countries such as South Sudan, Chad and Egypt. The World Food Program estimates that nearly 25 million people or half of Sudan’s population, face extreme hunger.
Recently the Sudanese government appealed to the International Criminal Court for a case of genocide against the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The claim is that the RSF is responsible for serious human rights violations including mass killings, rape and the forced displacement of the non-Arab Masalit people in West Darfur. The application claims the UAE “is complicit in the genocide of the Masalit people through its direction and provision of extensive financial, political, and military support for the rebel RSF militia”.
International Travel to the US Declines
Photo: Eduardo Munoz Alvarez April 15, 2024 (Getty Images)
According to a recent report by the research firm Tourism Economics, inbound travel to the US is projected to decline by 5.5% this year, instead of growing by 9% as had previously been forecast. Dissuaded by reports of tourists being arrested at the border, Trump’s rhetoric, tariffs and threats of invasions, some citizens of other countries are staying away from the US and choosing to travel elsewhere. Some of the steepest declines in tourism stem from Canada, where Trump’s repeated suggestion that the country should become the 51st state and tariffs have angered Canadian residents. Canada was the largest source of visitors to the US in 2024, with more than 20.2 million. Airline bookings from Canada to the US have sunk 70%compared to the same period last year. Air Canada has reportedly reduced its schedule of spring flights due to lack of demand. The 2024 reelection of Donald Trump and the consequential changes in foreign policy and diplomacy, alongside internal turmoil, has started to change global attitudes towards America, and this shift in attitude has begun affecting tourists’ desire to travel to the United States.
How the Twenty-Second And Twelfth Amendments Prohibit a Third Trump Term
How the Twenty-Second And Twelfth Amendments Prohibit a Third Trump Term
Civil Rights Brief No. 240 | Rodney Maggay | April 13, 2025
Section 1 of the Twenty – Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, “No person shall be elected to the Office of the President more than twice.” President Donald Trump was elected to the presidency in 2016 and again in 2024 after he was defeated in his bid for re – election in 2020.
On March 30, 2025 in a phone call to an MSNBC Sunday morning talk show President Donald Trump did not eliminate the possibility of seeking a third term for the White House in 2028. The President also clarified to his interviewers that he “was not joking” and that he was seeking ways to make it possible that he could serve a third term in office. The President further clarified that there was still a long way to go but eventually added, “A lot of people want me to do it.” LEARN MORE
Analysis
It is unclear if the President is merely joking in a manner to antagonize his opponents or if he is truly considering seeking the White House in 2028 for a third term. His comments however has caused legal scholars and news pundits to analyze the Twenty – Second Amendment to see if there is any possibility, however slim, that the President could serve a third term.
The text of the Twenty – Second Amendment on its face prohibits Mr. Trump from running for the White House again. The text prohibits a “person” from being elected President more than twice. There is no ambiguity or confusion in these words and it would appear to shut the door on Donald Trump from running for President after his current term is complete.
But in the days after Mr. Trump’s win in the 2024 election options have been floated to try and change the eligibility rules and allow Mr. Trump to run again. It would seem straightforward that if Mr. Trump would have any chance to run again that the first step would be to amend the Constitution and/or repeal the Twenty – Second Amendment. However, this path requires a high bar to clear because of the requirements needed to amend the Constitution.
Article V of the Constitution refers to the Amendment Process and requires that any amendment by ratified by 2/3 of both the House of Representatives and the Senate and also be ratified by 3/4 of the states. With the current political gridlock in Washington it is nearly impossible to reach this threshold of votes in both houses of Congress and among the states. But that still hasn’t stopped some congressman from introducing resolutions even though they probably know their resolution will fail. Rep. Andy Ogles (R) of Tennessee introduced a resolution that would get the amendment process started that would allow a person to seek a third term only if their two prior terms were served non – consecutively which would apply to Trump. (Rep. Ogles crafted his resolution in this manner in order to allow Trump to run again but still prohibit previous two term Presidents like Barack Obama and Bill Clinton from running.) Even though Rep. Ogles’ resolution has minimal chance of passing, it prompted a competing resolution from Rep. Dan Goldman (D) of New York affirming that the Twenty – Second Amendment applied to President Trump’s two non – consecutive terms and effectively barred him from running again. While both resolutions from the Congressmen do not appear likely to pass they appear to have also been appeals to their constituents in the context of what the Twenty – Second Amendment means for the future of their respective party’s presidential candidates.
But one theory that has gained traction lately is if in 2028 current Vice – President JD Vance runs for President with Donald Trump as his Vice – Presidential running mate. If Vance wins, he could step down and allow Vice – President – elect Donald Trump to assume the Presidency again. However, there is a separate Constitutional Clause that could help enforce the Twenty – Second Amendment and scuttle those plans. The last sentence of the Twelfth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” So, if the Twenty – Second Amendment is taken at face value and bars Donald Trump from running for a third term, then the last sentence of the Twelfth Amendment would also prohibit Mr. Trump from running as a Vice – Presidential running mate in order to try and succeed to the Presidency in some kind of work – around the Constitution.
While these are all academic debates and just chatter for the moment, any serious effort by the President to run again would likely end up in a case before the Supreme Court to decide the constitutional question. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE,
Engagement Resources
- FactCheck.org – analysis of constitutional loophole for Trump to try and run for a third term.
- Democracy Docket – analysis of alternative theories to avoid the Twenty – Second Amendment.